Re: [IFWP] Open and closed ----> yesterday's phone call

["Brian C. Hollingsworth" <bholling@ix.netcom.com>]

Ms. Dyson and Everyone,

  Ms. Dyson, as the CEO of ICANN, it seems a bit strange that you would draw
this conclusion for the GAC.  Is it not an ICANN appointed committee?

Esther Dyson wrote:

> Short answer:
>
> No, open v. closed was not on the agneda (or discussed) on the phone call
> yesterday. You can see what we *did* discuss - the NC, and the rationale for
> the decisions - in the minutes posted at the ICANN  site.
>
> The GAC sets its own agenda, and we are not responsible for what it
> considers....or advises.
>
> Esther
>
> At 01:48 PM 13/08/99 +0000, Kerry  Miller wrote:
> >
> >
> >Per the posted minutes of the Berlin meeting (5/27/99),
> >   http://www.icann.org/minutes/berlinminutes.html :
> >
> >"Finally, on a related matter, staff reported that ICANN had
> >solicited public comments on the question of whether "initial DNSO
> >Constituencies currently identified as 'ccTLD registries' and 'gTLD
> >registries' be re-categorized as 'open registries' and 'closed
> >registries,' identified according to whether the registry is open to
> >any registrant, worldwide ('open'), or is instead limited to certain
> >registrants based on geography, intended use, or other criteria
> >('closed')," and that the response had been largely negative;
> >therefore, the staff did not recommend taking any action on the
> >matter at this time."
> >
> >
> >Why then has the issue been put on the Governmental Advisory
> >Committee agenda? Does the GAC originate "advice" for the BoD?
> >Is there a record of the BoD asking the GAC for this advice, against
> >the recommendations of "staff"? Although there is no evidence that
> >the issue was revisited 6/23, was it on the agenda for the 8/12
> >telephone meeting?
> >
> >On a related note, I suggest that ICANN and its associated groups
> >and committees make an effort to put the dates of origin and last-
> >modification on their web pages? In particular reference to
> >amendments to the Bylaws, where the 'paper trail' itself might be of
> >interest, could this annotation be expanded to preserve rather than
> >over-write the earlier version(s)?
> >
> >Appreciating that following this up with any consistency is likely to
> >have only low priority for staff resources, I volunteer my hard drive
> >as a repository, and will provide the 5 Jun version of the ICANN
> >Bylaws, on request. (The relevant sections (2) and (3) are
> >appended below.)  I hope someone with more resources can
> >archive the  "extensive public comment," including the
> >documentation when "this matter was first discussed at ICANN's
> >May meetings in Berlin."  (I note at the URL given above, that
> > Resolution 99.35 says only that" the Board requests that the
> >Constituency for gTLD registries agree... to select only one
> >individual (rather than three) to represent that Constituency on the
> >provisional Names Council, and the Board states that if such
> >Constituency does not agree to make only one such selection, the
> >Board will amend the Bylaws to effectuate such goal." The minutes
> >make no note of extensive public comment at that meeting, or that
> >the resolution embodied a consensus of attendees altho I agree
> >that some of the other resolutions (also appended) suggest there
> >was some concern at least on the part of the Interim Board.
> >
> >While there is certainly a "need of the DNSO Names Council for
> >prompt clarification of its membership structure," I confess I am
> >surprised that this reversal of policy was not considered a
> >"significant Internet policy issue" to be discussed at a quarterly
> >meeting rather than on a special meeting teleconference.  Has the
> >DNSO in fact "amended its proposal"? (icann.org/dnso/ does not
> >apparently refer to any proposal, nor have the "organizers of the
> >provisional Names Council" done so at http://www.dnso.org/
> >
> >
> >kerry miller
> >
> >====
> >References:
> >http://www.noie.gov.au/docs/gac1.htm
> >
> >Agenda for ICANN GAC (Meeting III,  9:00am to 6:30pm [!],
> >8/24/99 ) Santiago, Chile
> >
> >4.Discussion on domains containing restrictions or conditions on
> >registration that serve to ensure certainty with respect to the
> >application and enforcement of laws ("restricted domains"), as
> >opposed to domains containing no such restrictions or conditions
> >on registrations ("open domains").
> >
> >5.Discussion on principles for the delegation of management for
> >ccTLDs.
> >
> >====
> >
> >As posted 5 June, VI (2) a reads in its entirety:
> >" The NC shall consist of three representatives from each
> >Constituency recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria set
> >forth in Section 3 of this Article."
> >
> >VI (3)c reads in part:
> >   " Nominations within each Constituency may be made by any
> >member of the Constituency, but no such member may make more
> >than one nomination in any single Constituency; provided that this
> >limitation shall not apply to any Constituency with less than
> >three members."
> >
> >As amended 12 August:
> >  "The NC shall consist of representatives, selected in accordance
> >with Section 3(c) of this Article, from each Constituency
> >recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section
> >3 of this Article."
> >
> >
> >  "Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Constituency may have more
> >representatives on the NC than there are members of the
> >Constituency."
> >
> >
> >=========
> >Further minutes of the Berlin meeting (my emphasis):
> >
> >FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.32), that the President of
> >the Corporation is directed to work with the Constituencies to
> >amend their proposals to address deficiencies noted by the Board,
> >which amended proposals must include a commitment of the
> >submitting Constituency to *hold a new election of Names Council
> >representatives* promptly following the approval by the Board of
> >such amended proposal.
> >
> >FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.33), that, when such
> >proposals are so amended, the Board should examine such
> >proposals to determine *whether the deficiencies have been
> >satisfactorily addressed* and whether to extend the recognition
> >today made.
> >
> >FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.34), that the Names Council
> >*representatives chosen by the provisionally recognized
> >Constituencies shall constitute the provisional Names Council, with
> >all the powers set forth in the Bylaws* other than the selection of
> >ICANN Directors (pursuant to Section 2(e) of Article VI-B of the
> >Bylaws), which selection powers will be deferred until such time as
> >the Board determines it has made sufficient final recognitions.
> >
> >FURTHER RESOLVED (Resolution 99.35), that the Board
> >*requests* that the Constituency for gTLD registries agree, for so
> >long as Network Solutions is the only participant in such
> >Constituency, to select only one individual (rather than three) to
> >represent that Constituency on the provisional Names Council, and
> >the Board states that if such Constituency does not agree to make
> >only one such selection, the Board will amend the Bylaws to
> >effectuate such goal.
> >
> >===
> >
> >
> >
>
> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
> edyson@edventure.com
> 1 (212) 924-8800
> 1 (212) 924-0240 fax
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com                    http://www.icann.org
>
> High-Tech Forum in Europe:  24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
> PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
> Book:  "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"

Respectfully,

--
Brian C. Hollingsworth
Sr. Legal Advisor, International House of Justice Internet
Communications  Affairs and Policy
Advisory council for Public Affairs and Internet Policy, European
Union